This post is a continuation from here

Then we come to Brian Monteith's article in the Edinburgh Evening News. He probably knows even less on the subject than Tom Gallagher.

Indeed he doesn't even know the difference between an arranged and a forced marriage:

...but does [Salmond] make plain his opposition to the continuing fatwa on Rushdie, the growth in so-called honour killings and continuation of arranged marriages that disgust most Scottish people?

Having such limited cultural awareness doesn't stop him wading into the issue though.

Again, the same call to arms as Gallagher for an English tabloid witchhunt. "Religious zealots must be challenged". Who to go after? The only person named is me. If our biggest problems are Muslims who take part in elections, believe in Scottish independence, and get queasy about the idea of a nose bleed, then I submit that we are very well off indeed.

Comments

[joe90]

I had a quick look through some of Brian Monteith's newspaper musings - needless to say I wasn't disappointed.

I found this headline to one of his columns -
Innocent lives are saved by bombing
Evening News
02 Nov 2001
Now we always knew that innocent people were going to die if bombing commenced, no matter how accurate the bombs....

.... While the lives of these innocent Afghans are as valuable as those who died in the United States, the act of Bin Laden’s terrorism is not the moral equivalence of the Allied bombing.

Look at it this way. As far as George Bush and his generals go, the Afghan dead have all been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their deaths are the worst thing that could have happened for them.

Why? Because their deaths make it harder for the US to prosecute and complete the war it is mounting on all of our behalfs.

Notice that the mass-murder of Afghan folk is not the worst thing that could have happened to them - it is the worst thing that could have happened to the US!

Poor George Bush!

Also notice that Brian's insight here completely contradicts the headline - US bombing does kill innocent people after all!

These sentiments of Brian are exactly the same ones which Al Quaeda profess - both Brian and Al Quaeda regret the waste of innocent life but deem their sacrifice necessary for a higher good. Of course, Al Quaeda are merely terrorist whilst we in the UK are war criminals.

Here are some of the benefits that accrue to the victims of our war crimes, according to Brain -
The side of Iraq not making headlines
14 Nov 2003

And this is a real classic, its got everything in it -
Ethics, not oil, is fuel for this war
14 Feb 2003
I didn’t vote for Tony Blair and I have many concerns about the state of preparedness he has let our forces fall into, but if he decides a pre-emptive strike is in our interests I am prepared to trust his judgement.

[joe90]

Does anybody know if Uncle Tom
has offered any of his expert advice to the likes of the Lib Dems or the Cons or even New Labour?

I can't help feeling that given the millions of non-British Muslims the New Labour Party, in particular, has murdered and is in the process of murdering, that Uncle Tom is wasting his talents on the SNP.

[joe90]

Osama Strikes Back!
Islamophobia Watch
05 Aug 2007

Brilliant!

[Thersites]

" he doesn't even know the difference between an arranged and a forced marriage"

Nor do quite a few muslim parents, so it's not surprising if an unbeliever doesn't.

[George Carty]

One British Muslim woman suggested that forced marriages in Britain are often a form of immigration racket, designed to secure British citizenship for a relative back home.

[honoured_guest]

Arranged and Forced marriages are not the sole problem of Muslim households - it is typically a sub-Indian problem.

The problem is the hindu's and Sikh's all look Asian (obviously) therefore people automatically assume Muslim.

[Random Guy]

Salaams,

Did not know where to send this, so I just post it here for now. Follow on from the Channel 4 Dispatches thingummy. Worth a new topic?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6936681.stm

[Thersites]

It's also a problem with some arabs, kurds, in parts of africa and- until very recently- in parts of Europe, Honoured Guest. However, the fact that the quran gives instructions on how to arramge marriages for children without mentioning any need to consult the children means that it can be interpreted as allowing the parents to arrange marriages without considering the children's opinions and so can be seen as giving approval through the word of god.

[joe90]

What does The Bible say about the matter Thersites?

Where was The Bible written Thersites, any idea?

[joe90]

Where was The Bible written Thersites, any idea?

I'll answer my own question - but I hope Believers of the various sacred Holy Scripture don't think I am trying to undermine the veracity of G-d's Word when I state the secular rather than the spiritual provenance of these great works!

The Old Testament - written in Asia by Asians

The New Testament - written in Asia by Asians

The Qu'ran - written in Asia by Asians

[Thersites]

Which bit of the bible are you talking about, Joey? Different bits were written at different times. The difference is that most xtians interpret the bible as what men understand god to have said whereas muslims believe that the quran is the exact and absolute word of god. As a result muslims have to accept what the quran says, whether they like it or not or- as with forced/arranged marriages- tell the people being married off they have to accept it whether they like it or not.

[raashid]

Thersistes - you're right that many Muslim paernts seem to think forced marriages and arranged are the same. However, I've never heard of verses in the Quran that talk about arranging/forcing marriages. Can you provide those verses for us?

[haseeb]

Salaam

On the issue of arranged and forced marriages.There is nothing in the Quran that states that forced marriages are permissible.In fact there are explicit aHadith (Prophetic traditions) that clearly state that the consent of the woman (and obviously the man) whether previously married or not is a definite requirement for a marriage to be termed legal under Shariah.
In reality it is usually the cultural background (primarily in the Indian sub-continent context, but also in some Middle Eastern societies) that justifies forced marriages and concepts such as family 'honour'.

[honoured_guest]

@ Thersites

Agreed that arranged and forced marraiges are not the sole problem of Asian households - I merely pointed at that continent because most of our news about forced marriages focuses on their plight.

However, I must disagree with your claim that the Qur'an gives instructions on how to "arramge marriages... without mentioning any need to consult the children."

Having read the Qur'an many times I have yet to come across any such verses - or do they only appear for certain people?

The Islamic concept of marriage is that it is arranged on BEHALF of the couple to be, not FOR the couple to be.

A potential groom asks for a hand in marriage.
The family consult the girl.
Girl agrees - marriage, yay!
Girl disagrees - no marriage, again, yay!

Today most people look at how ASIAN Muslims conduct their marriages (just look at every case of a forced marriage here in the UK. If it not a Pakistani woman, it is a Bangladeshi or Indian one)- most of their wedding customs (I can say with confidence because I fall into one of the above categories) are cultural baggage from their continent. It has very little to do with Religion - only the "Nikah" (dowery) and "Walimah" (dinner by the groom post first night)are Islamic Traditions - the rest are cultural ones (this includes the red sarees, henna, stag nights etc etc).

[Thersites]

So, Joey, you think the bible and quran are Asian books for Asian people. You're certainly mistaken about parts of the New Testament, wghich were written in Italy, and the world-view of the authors of the Old Testament tended to be more oriented to the Mediterranean as a cultural defining factor than to Asia. My apologies for misreading "Where" as "When". Both are equally irrelevant to the topic. of course.

The very attitude of the quran assumes that muslim men control their families. In Sura 4, for example, it is not only the infamous verse 34 that shows it but the fact that the whole chapter is addressed to men and deals with how they should treat "their" women. Equally, Mohammed- supposedly the supreme example- married nearly all his wives by arrangement with their parents or guardians, not the women concerned.

The problem with your hypothetical muslim marriage, Honoured Guest: "A potential groom asks for a hand in marriage.
The family consult the girl.
Girl agrees - marriage, yay!
Girl disagrees - no marriage, again, yay!"

is that when the family consult the girl [you omit to mention whether the other family consult the boy, but presumably they do] both families already regard the marriage as a good idea- if they didn't it wouldn't have got that far- so it is very unlikely to be "Girl disagrees - no marriage, again, yay!" Rather it is, girl insults one family and spoils the fortune and future plans of both families and she'd better have very good reason to do so. How far people will go in response will vary of course, but there is nothing in the quran, as far as I know, to limit her family's reaction and one of the problems with books that are supposed to be the word of god is that if they don't specify what people can or cannot do in any situation, people will think they can do anything.

[joe90]

Come on, Joey, my boy, where did I claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive"? You're indulging in fantasies yet again here.

*******

So, Joey, you think the bible and quran are Asian books for Asian people. You're certainly mistaken about parts of the New Testament, which were written in Italy,
- really,
which part(s) of The New Testament were written in 'Italy' (which didn't exist at that time) and whereabouts ?

I thought you said Roman Catholics weren't important - surely Italian RC cultural artefacts are inferior?

Where did I say that literature is only for those who write it ?
Don't misrepresnt what I say - only european neo-nazi morons would stoop to such time-wasting tactics. This is hardly evidence of your cultural superiority, that you can't even follow what others are saying. I said these 3 great Holy Scriptures were written in Asia by Asians, and am quite clear about it.

So I'll ask you again,
where was The Bible written?

And what does The Bible say about marriage?

You can't seem to answer a few simple questions about The Bible, a text at the the heart of European history and many of many its institutions.

I mean,
if the 'culture' you lay claim to is so superior and you know so much about as to why it is so superior, please indulge all us culturally-backward savages, and tell us all about it. Surely a few simple questions aren't beyond your culturally superior knowledge are they, especially about so important a text?

[Thersites]

Parts of the Acts of the Apostles were written by St Paul while he was waiting trial in Rome, Joey. Possibly some of his epistles as well. If "Italy... didn't exist at that time", where was Rome then? Also in Asia? The Revelation of St. John is famous for happening on the Greek Island of Patmos. It's also possible that the earliest parts of the Old Testament in their firat forms were created in the Egyptian exile- if that ever actually happened.

"I thought you said Roman Catholics weren't important" You thought wrongly, Joey, but, then, you usually do. "- surely Italian RC cultural artefacts are inferior?" What is the connexion, in your eyes, between importance and inferiority? There can be no doubt that Hitler or Stalin were much more important men than George Lansbury as measured by their effects on history; that doesn't stop them being grossly inferior human beings. You show your usual ignorance when you refer to those writings as "Italian RC cultural artefacts". There were no RCs for a few hundred years yet. The fact that they were written in Italy no more makes them Italian than the fact that Browning wrote his poetry in Italy makes it Italian.

If you don't think that "literature is only for those who write it", why did you insist so strongly on the asian origins of the quran and bible? What does it matter who wrote them or where they wrote them? They rest on theocratic assumptions that god has given precise orders about what humans should do and about the sort of society god allegedly wants which mean that if they are put into effect the freedom of other people would be unjustly resticted. For that matter, what does it matter what the bible says about marriage? Not being consciously written as an entirety, like the quran, it says different things in different places. However, we are not discussing our comparative knowledge of ancient superstitions but whether one of them- islam- can reasonably be interpreted to give the heads of families absolute or excessive- by contemporay secular standards- power and control in dceciding who family members may marry.

[joe90]

Thereshites says -
I do not claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive". Nor do I claim not to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive".
- so enlighten me then, what are you and am I wrong?

************************

Thereshites' grasp of Biblical exegisis is as impressive as their grasp of their own arguments and use of basic reasoning skills.

Thereshites reckons that Christians don't believe The Bible is the actual Holy Word of G-d, unlike Muslims and their Holy Scripture!
viz -
The difference is that most xtians interpret the bible as what men understand god to have said whereas muslims believe that the quran is the exact and absolute word of god
This post is 1 Posted by: Thersites | 09 August 2007 at 06:28 PM

What a load of psuedo post-modernist gibberish - Thereshites go back to 'Hiltler's Place' blog and learn to parody po-mo properly. You're just making a laughing stock of yourself.

************************

Here is where Thereshites denigrates other Peoples culture, history and religion - the ignorant little european neo-nazi twerpo -
The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse.
Posted by: Thersites | 08 August 2007 at 06:08 PM
Not only do you know nothing about other Peoples cultures and history, let alone show any respect for them, but you know very little about the European culture you imply and infer as superior and more important.

First -
- The Old Testament was writen in Asia by Asians

- The New Testament was written in Asia by Asians

- The Qu'ran was written in Asia by Asians.

Also -
Western Philosphy - is Asian, founded in Asia Minor, Western Turkey.

Western Literature - is Asian, founded in Asia Minor, Western Turkey ie Homer's 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' are set there

Just to reiterate -
The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse.
Well, Islam replaced Gothic Christianity of north Africa and southern Spain, and Byzantine Christinaity of The Levant and Asia Minor.

Saint Paul was Asian - and what did St Paul have to say about women and marriage Thereshites, seeing as how you are such a sparkling Biblical scholar?

Karl Popper's 'The Open Society' is a stinging attack on Plato's 'Republic' - Plato is considered a central figure in western philosophy but was also a leading anti-democrat in Ancient Athenian democracy. One of the west's fundamental cultural figures is an aristocratic anti-democrat totalitarian!

************************

There were democratic elements in other societies- the Romans might be ruled by the Senate, but the Tribunes of the People had to be consulted and had rights of veto. The German tribes that took over the Roman Empire also had democratic elements; there were gatherings of delegates from the people to discuss policy and taxation.
Time for Muslims to cry freedom 10 August 2007 at 06:47 PM

Thereshites, the Roman scholar, doesn't seem to appreciate the difference from Roman Republican politics and politics under the Roman Empire. Nor do they mention that ancient Rome was a strictly caste society and that only aristocrats could stand for public office, and were slave-owners etc etc

Thereshites characterises Germanic Barbarian Tribal politics as some kind of democratic utopia - I have to laugh at this one. I can't even be bothered answering it - Ancient Tuetonic democracy, pure Nazi ideology!

Still on the subject of European democracy, as it has only been on the go for the past 100 years, if that - this means that since ancient Athenian democracy, way back in c.500 BCE, democracy has only been practiced in Europe for 0.4% of the time - hardly an innately European characteristic, is it?
Who has been in control of Europeans the for the rest of the 99.6% of the time since ancient Athens?

************************

Where did Martin Luther King say "We are different but equal?"
Here is what I said, quoting from no-one but using my own words -
"I stand by Martin Luther King - we are all different but equal. Diversity is democracy.
In a democracy you are allowed to practice whatever faith or creed you believe in, free from harrassment, racism or interference."
This was 1960s America, the land of the brave and free - how come MLK had to plead for democracy and social justice if the US was so democratic and so free? When did the progressive and enlightened Yanks manage to abolish slavery from the US?

[Abu Sinan]

There is a huge difference between cultural practices and Islam. Much of what is being talked about is cultural practice.

The Prophet made it clear that women cannot be forced into marriage. Citing his marriages would not work unless you can show that any of the women involved did not want to be married to him yet were forced into it anyway.

It is a cultural issue that is why Hindus and Siekhs have the same issue. Thousands of women are killed every year in India, by Hindus, based on dowry and other related "honour crimes" yet all we hear about is the practice in the Middle East.

I have read several peices recently about honour killings in Jordan, yet by any account these number in the few dozens in Jordan. It goes to show you that it is not really the practice of honour killing that is the issue. If it were you'd hear muchmore about the practice in India where thousands die every year.

It is just the sad fact that in today's climate Muslims and Islamic countries do not get a "pass" like other countries do.

As to Muslims believing The Qur'an is the literal word of God, so what? Many Christians believe the same thing, although they just decide to pick and choose what to follow.

In the New Testament women are told to be quiet in church and not to ask questions. Any questions they might have should be answered by their husband at home. They are also told that a woman who goes about with her head uncovered is a shame to her local community.

Why dont we hear about that? And why do those Christians who say that the Bible is the literal word of God forget those passages as they are bashing Muslims for forcing their women to cover?

As a matter of fact, that passage in the New Testament is much more open and clear about the obligation of women to cover their heads than anything in The Qur'an.

For those Jews and Christians, to whom The Bible is the literal word of God, the scripture could, and has, given license to many things. In the Bible to speak back to your parents could be a crime punishable by death. Homosexuality..........death..being a member of another religion (pagans).....death.

If you are not aware that many Christians and Jews believe that The Bible is the literal word of God, all over it, then you are living in a different world than I am.

I was raised Christian and we were taught that the Bible, in it's entirety, was the word of God, as expressed through the people who wrote it.

The Bible gives men the absolute right of life or death over their families, as expressed by the word of God as written by those guided by Him.

If you are not aware of this you do not know much about how many if not most Christian fundamentalists view The Bible.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

[Thersites]

Joey, you space-bopping plastic puppet of a troll, you've surpassed yourself. As well as your usual lies, ignorance and stupidity you've posted a "reply" that has no connexion at all with the post you're supposed to br replying to. You'd better ask the nurse for a bigger-than-usual dose of sedatives.

Abu Sinan: Where did Mohammed make it clear that women cannot be forced into marriage? I think that may well be the case, but the fact remains that the potential wives were only consulted when the arrangements for marriage would already be at an advanced stage and refusal could have serious consequences for relations between the families. Whether Mohammed's own wives apparently consented is irrelevant. They either believed he had a direct connexion with god and whatever he said was god's will or they believed that he believed he had a direct connexion with god and whatever he said was god's will and was surrounded by men willing to put his will into effect. In neither case can any consent be described as complete and uncoerced.
Dowry murder isn't an honour crime- it entirely financially motivated. Not many christians believe that the bible is the literal word of god nowadays and- as you point out- most of them happily ignore the savage or inconvenient bits. You acknowledge yourself: "I was raised Christian and we were taught that the Bible, in it's entirety, was the word of God, as expressed through the people who wrote it."
"As expressed through the people who wrote it." is a very handy cop-out phrase. The quran is supposedly the exact and absolute word of god as expressed by god. No escape there. Either you believe it or you don't and if you do then it grants men as the heads of households considerable power over "their" women. where the legitimate exercise of power in the service of superior wisdom, islamically defined, becomes coercion is debatable, but there's a lot of room for interpretation and drastic hints.

[joe90]

Thanks for that Abu Sinan mate!

This Thersites character is what used to be called a 'jew-baiter' - these days, the bigotry and ignorance is still the same, only the tragets have changed. They are now called 'muslim-baiters'.

Thersites, and their ilk, pretend they merely seek enlightenment on Judaism; on how it is possible for it to fit into a western-style democracy; and what about these seemingly uncivilised passges in Holy Judiac Scripture which says....etc etc..

It's a childish and transparant racist technique, and old hat.

********************************

Thereshites let's just stick to this thread

And just to re-iterate what Thereshites says about themselves -
I do not claim to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive". Nor do I claim not to be "civilised, enlightened, rational and progressive".

This gibberrish can't be repeated enough on Thereshites behalf.

*************************************
CULTURE
Thereshites, the human monkey, doesn't know what 'culture' or a 'culture' is

What a culture is, which is what a culture does and is completely separate to morality.
- of course, silly me - uninformed behaviour is culture.
Thereshites definition includes animals, beasts of the field and many old and current European totalitarian regimes have culture.

According to Thereshites definition of 'culture -
No human conscience is required for 'culture' to operate, nor any or individuality or even democracy. As I have already pointed out to the human monkey Theresites, but this seems to be a difficult trick for them to master - All that is required of human beings in Murdoch's corporate media empire or the nazi or fascist regimes, is that they follow their orders.

Animals don't have moral consciences which is just about the best definition there is for Racist Murdoch's News Empire - same with European nazism, fascism and soviet communism. You don't need morailty when you are merely required to follow orders. Just become a mere human monkey, like Thereshites.

How many times has the superiority of European culture and civilisation been used in service of European racism, European imperialism and its various flavours of totalitarian regimes of which, the current American Empire and Racist Murdoch's News Empire, is but two varieties?

Ancient Athenian democracy came and went - all it has been good for is to be used as a justification for the brutal savagery of Europeans in their conquest and destruction of the rest of the world - sometimes this looting and pillaging is referred to by westerners as 'the white man's burden' or 'manifest destiny' or 'lebensraum' or 'democracy building', and other such European superstitious tosh.

Ancient Romans ran breeding farms for slaves - they treated fellow humans no better than animals. Typical western trait really as I have shown.

Monkey see monkey do Thereshites - why not go back to 'Hitler's Place' blog and learn how to denigrate others Peoples religion and culture properly, from the muslim-baiting experts there, and try again.

Thereshites the human monkey, tries to ape his betters - the human monkey see, the human monkey do!

***********************************

Thereshites says -
Muslim states preserved books; christian states destroyed books that didn't agree with the state-supported version of christianity and scraped away ancient classics to reuse the vellum to write incomprehensible and semi-literate theological ravings. In short, Joey, European cultures were among those even worse than the islamic civilisation that replaced them.
- brilliant!

If you don't re-use books for other purposes then you are a great culture!

And I thought you were only refering to cultures of the Hejaz and East of that as well - rather than Africa, the Levant and Asia Minor.

***************************************

"Where have I said Europeans and European ways are innately superior, Joey?

Here you do, as I keep pointing out -
The best that can be said for early islamic civilisation was that it replaced ones which were even worse.
- this implies, using basic reasoning, that the writer considers themselves to be so culturally advanced that they have the perfect right to sit in judgement of other Peoples and their ways of life and that they find 'islamic civilisation' in particular, beneath their own

You repeat it here -
European cultures were among those even worse than the islamic civilisation that replaced them.
- where you still maintain the notion of your own civilisation's superiority over 'islamic civilisation', slightly modified, but ignorant of the other cultures of the time, so a meaningless re-statement anyway.

You also have it in for Roman Catholics as well.

****************************************
BUSH
Speaking of back tracking -
Furthermore it is not only "the west" that has engaged in massacres and genocides; however, other regimes have never had any problems with carrying them out because of opposition from public opinion. Public opinion in "the west" may not have prevented those crimes, but it has stopped them being completely carried out. What we need now is ways to stop personal vanity and folly enabling leaders to act as Messrs Bush and Blair did and to bring an effective penalty if they try to.
- other regimes don't have problems with public opinion!

According to Thereshites, public opinion didn't matter when Bush and Blair carried out their 'unprovoked aggression' against Iraq, but now it does! So which is it?

Totalitarian regimes can respond to public opinion if they feel like, but it's there choice not the publics.

As I have already said to you, Thereshites the human monkey,
what Bush is doing in Iraq has nothing to do with American democracy, or human morality but merely is a function of wether his actions have been successful or not.

In a proper functioning totalitarian regimes such as Bush operates under, success and failure are the only measure that counts - not culture, humanity, morality, mom's apple pie, Americas noble intentions to do good etc etc

It has been the efforts of certian elements of the active Iraqi resistence but also, more importantly, the passive resistence of rest of the Iraqi population which has ensured that western war crimes won't work, rather than tosh about western public opnion. Of course, you yourself consider western public opinion is influenced by a western news media which basically runs on the same lines as Goebbels and the Soviet Regime followed ie they merely repeat the lies of the government rather than investigate government claims.

By the way,
When did western public opinion stop the genocide of North American Natives, for instance - or the genocide of central American natives or South American natives? I thought western public opnion was used to carry these crimes out, not prevent them?

************************************
ASIAN CHRISTIANITY
Just when it seems impossible, you say something that shows you to be even more ignorant and stupid than I'd thought you, Joey, my boy. Some of the civilisations replaced by early islamic civilisations were European christian civilisations, as anyone but an ignoramus would know.
- I keep telling you Thereshites, Christianity is an Asian religion. You don't seem to be listening.
What was European about Byzantine Christianity?
What was European about Vandal or Gothic Aryan Christainity - these People came from the East, and in a roundabout way, eventually settled in Spain and Africa.
These Peoples weren't European and neither was their religion.

St John on Patmos -
Some Asian bloke went to Patmos, wrote something wierd on a scroll while tripping on LSD, and automitically it becomes European cultural artefact, not an Asian one!

***************************************

ANCIENT ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Ancient Greek democracy several hundred years and it influenced all later philosophy and democratic movements profoundly..
- more flannel from Thereshites.

Ancient Athenian democracy did not last for hundreds of years Thereshites, and it was an extremely limited in its franchise. It came and it went.

The fact is that thousands of years later Westerners like you, Thereshites, used this fleeting phenomena as an excuse to denigrate, and colonise other people and their destroy their culture in the name of western progress, civilisations and democracy.

What about the Athenian Empire Thereshites - what had that to do with Athenian democracy?

***************************************

Here, you forgetful little chap....Again, Joey, are you denyiong that there was no Fascism .... except of European origin?
- here is my original reply to this
"just to use your utterly laughable childish standards of debate Thereshites, where did I say they weren't?"
- and further, when Thereshites thinks something is a good thing they will ascribe it exclusively to Europe, such as democracy - but when something bad is of European origin (ie fascism, Rupert Murdoch, Nazism) then everybody is guilty of it, and not just Europeans.

**********************************

'd favour democracy wherever it was invented for the reasons put forward in Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies.
?"
- really, for someone who deems themselves the judge of the worth of other cultures, you can't seem understand your own, so I'l spell it out - what exactly do you mean by this opaque statement?
It is an attack on Plato and other European totalitarians who are reckoned to be civilised and consider their regimes as civilised ie the US - so what are you on about?

ps
I've just seen Thereshites latest comments and I don't know if I can be bothered with this neo-nazi anymore

[johnmellor77]

"You don't need morailty when you are merely required to follow orders."

Joe90, I got this far into your latest diatribe and have to ask: are you saying that people who strictly adhere to religious guidelines on behaviour ie the 10 Commandments or instructions in the Koran have no morality? They are just "following orders" because they believe there will be a heavenly reward, are they not?

[joe90]

john mincer
don't worry, I couldn't care less what you you think about me or my comments - I couldn't care less about time-wasters like you.

Nobody today, gets sent to a death camp just because they disagree with the Pope or they have a problem with Calvinist interpretation of The Bible - maybe you know different, but I doubt it.

So johnmincer
where are these concentration camps and torture chambers that are used by today's religions to keep their flocks in line if they don't obey their orders?

Show me the universal ethical standards put into practice by Hitler and Stalin that required the use of a human conscience uncontaminated by their propaganda and their commands enforced through the use of terror?

Prove Hitler and Stalin's regimes could have survived without the use of terror and coercion?

Which standards of public conduct and civic duty apply to both religion and to Nazism, could you tell me?

It doesn't surprise me a mincer like you has no idea about human morality and the difference between freedom and democracy and being able to follow one's own conscience - and whole populations kept like slaves and used like slaves under regimes that have to use terror, oppression and fear in order to stay in power.

Then again,
you thought Hitler was elected German Chancellor - says it all!

[joe90]

Usually johnmincer
history shows us that people of religion are usually the first to stand up to institutions of violent coercion and power - in most religions these followers who make the ultimate sacrifice, so that others don't need to, are refered to as 'martyrs'
ie witnesses to the greatness of G-d.

Hence the reason religions are usually the first to be persecuted by totalitarian regimes where following orders is more important than following one's conscience.

Of course, there will always be mincers with no conscience at all, who will blindly follow whatever orders they are given and believe whatever propaganda they are fed by the likes of Goebbels and Murdoch - the rest of humanity can only pity such empty human vessels and willing slaves.

Here is the latest from the
Peace Tax Seven -

NEWS RELEASE
Peace Tax Seven await a decision from the European Court of Human Rights, whether they should be allowed to divert their taxes from military to peaceful uses.

The Seven have exhausted all possibilities in the British courts. Judges told them they must overturn a decision ECHR made over 20 years ago.

This decision has prevented cases like Peace Tax Seven's from being heard ever since but British judges question ECHR's reasoning.

They say, "They (ECHR) have taken what may be thought to be a rather strict or narrow line on the manifestation of religious and philosophical belief ... In some respects the reasoning may be legally and logically unsound. "

Their thoroughly prepared case can be read at: www.peacetaxseven.com/echr

Meanwhile the Seven are to launch a multilingual version of their award winning video, Contempt of Conscience, at the European Parliament in September.

Jill Evans MEP and staunch supporter of the Seven will be hosting the launch on 18th September at the European Parliament in Brussels.

The launch is being organised by Quaker Concern for European Affairs. One of their campaigns is to extend the rights of conscientious objectors to military service to include paying for military preparations.
ENDS

[johnmellor77]

Joe90 - if you really don't care why write hundreds of words calling me a Nazi and not answering my question?
Your homopbobia is showing through.

But if you really want to look for torture carried out on theological grounds you might want to check this out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=477088&in_page_id=1770

Do actually think about what you post or do you just decide that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a fascist? Pillock.